GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 612448
Display offline contacts and sort by status by default
Last modified: 2010-03-11 10:29:26 UTC
According Cannonical's usability testing, those default would make more sense to users.
Created attachment 155756 [details] [review] http://git.collabora.co.uk/?p=user/cassidy/empathy;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/better-default-612448 data/empathy.schemas.in | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
This problem has been fixed in the development version. The fix will be available in the next major software release. Thank you for your bug report.
Guillaume, just a personal doubt. Do you think people using facebook chat in Empathy, maybe with 300 friends, will be happy??
That's a *default* value, it's really easy to change it using the view menu. Usability tests showed that people don't thing about displaying offline contacts and so are confused because they don't see all their contacts. We think that people will think easier about "How can I hide those offline contacts" rather than "How could I show online one".
This fix actually "breaks" (if we can talk of a "break" in this case) documentation. This is how it is described now: http://library.gnome.org/users/empathy/stable/offline-contacts.html.en With this fix it is now the exact contrary. Just to have an idea: did the usability test consider the documentation when doing the test? (I asked this on the usability test blog post, but got no answer) And, are the usability test results available somewhere?
(In reply to comment #5) > This fix actually "breaks" (if we can talk of a "break" in this case) > documentation. > > This is how it is described now: > http://library.gnome.org/users/empathy/stable/offline-contacts.html.en > > With this fix it is now the exact contrary. Oh sorry, I didn't realised that this was breaking the doc (I should read the doc more). Do you want me to revert this for 2.30 or can you upgrade the doc? > Just to have an idea: did the usability test consider the documentation when > doing the test? (I asked this on the usability test blog post, but got no > answer) And, are the usability test results available somewhere? I don't think that users consulted documentation during the tests (I wasn't there but IIRC the person who leaded the tests said they didn't). I'll ask her for the last version of the report and then will blog about it.
(In reply to comment #6) > > Oh sorry, I didn't realised that this was breaking the doc (I should read the > doc more). > Do you want me to revert this for 2.30 or can you upgrade the doc? No need to revert, I'll update the doc later today and warn i18n and doc mailing lists. > I don't think that users consulted documentation during the tests (I wasn't > there but IIRC the person who leaded the tests said they didn't). > I'll ask her for the last version of the report and then will blog about it. That would be cool, thanks.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > > > Oh sorry, I didn't realised that this was breaking the doc (I should read the > > doc more). > > Do you want me to revert this for 2.30 or can you upgrade the doc? > > No need to revert, I'll update the doc later today and warn i18n and doc > mailing lists. Great thanks a lot! Sorry for the disturbance.